Crypto firm bankruptcies and resulting disruption in the crypto ecosystem will continue to exacerbate liquidity and regulatory concerns in this space. Signs of contagion are evident as prices of almost every cryptocurrency type have halved in recent months. Since all participants supporting the crypto ecosystem are at risk, managing that risk is critical.

Fund managers should be prepared on multiple fronts, as the following examples illustrate:

Everything, everywhere, all at once is our risk thesis for 2023, but one must not forget about concentration risk. This issue has rocketed up diligence agendas for LPs and GPs alike as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank proved it really was the bank for venture capital.The entry of SVB into receivership on March 10, 2023 highlighted just how central it had become to U.S.

A GLOBAL LEGAL MEDIA & NISHLIS LEGAL MARKETING PUBLICATION THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Israel’s Unicorn Success Story SNNOVATION The US-Israel Legal Review 2022 1 Contents THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 2 WELCOME FROM THE PUBLISHERS Global Legal Media and Nishlis Legal Marketing 4 ECONOMIC HEADWINDS, A HOT WAR AND A TRADE WAR: THE IMPACT ON ISRAEL’S COMPANIES With rising interest rates, rising inflation and reduced growth forecasts, how has that reality been faced by corporate clients and start-ups? Arnon, Tadmor-Levy provide some answers.

What You Need to Know

• Silicon Valley Bank’s 48-hour collapse sent several Big Law firms into action late last week.

• Morgan Lewis, Wilmer, Wilson Sonsini and Ballard Spahr are among the laws firms that launched task forces and webinars over the weekend.

• Despite some reassurance from the FDIC on Sunday, there are lingering issues that are expected to continue to prevent firms’ clients from conducting business in the normal course.

Highlights

Counterparties should continue to follow their current contractual obligations

Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company bankruptcy filing will not impact contractual rights

Counterparties should be vigilant and consider alternate financing arrangements

In the second largest US bank failure since the 2008 global financial crisis, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took over Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) on March 10 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as SVB’s receiver. Just two days later, the New York State Department of Financial Services took over another bank, Signature Bank, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. And, yesterday, the share price of various European banks plunged following record one-day selloffs.

The FDIC receiverships of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank have caused certain early-stage companies to face potentially crippling near-term liquidity issues. These liquidity issues may result in a company becoming insolvent. Therefore, boards of directors of such companies need to consider their fiduciary duties as well as steps that can be taken to mitigate risks.

Fiduciary duties are typically owed to the company for the benefit of its owners.

This alert provides background on the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and explains significant recent developments, including the subsequent failure of Signature Bank and the U.S. government’s announcement that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will make whole all depositors of both institutions. This alert also describes the new program simultaneously announced by the Federal Reserve to provide additional liquidity to the banking industry.

Run on Silicon Valley Bank

From investors to regulators, FTX Trading Ltd (FTX) filing for bankruptcy was unexpected by all. A catalyst for litigation and regulation over the years to come, this collapse will serve as a warning, particularly to cryptocurrency insurers.

What happened?

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.